More than three-quarters of those surveyed (76.5%) said it was never ethical to review a book without reading the entire book. What surprises me is that some eight percent see nothing wrong with it.

A nearly identical percentage (76.3%) agree that “commissioned” book reviews should be identified as such. Less than five percent said they need not be identified.

A slightly smaller number (64.9%) believe someone who’s written an unpaid blurb for a book should not be allowed to write a fuller review of the book. I had already decided this concept will apply to a forthcoming book for which I recently provided a blurb.

Surprisingly, while more than 80 percent think “literary journals” and magazines should follow the same ethical rules as newspaper book sections, little more than half (54.6%) believe “literary blogs” (whatever they may be) should.

Forty percent thought a reviewer should not read other reviews of a book before reviewing it while only 18% approved of doing so. Perhaps reflecting there are a variety of factors that might impact this in any particular situation, 33.5% gave “other” as a response.

More than half (54%) say it is never acceptable for a reviewer not to say what they really think about a book. Saying it’s acceptable or “other” roughly split another 38 % of the vote. I agree with the majority but note that one need not use razors in expressing what you really think.

The yes and no votes were equally split on a related issue. Thirty-four percent fell on either side of whether it is ethical for a reviewer to decline to review a book they already accepted for review because they didn’t like it and didn’t want to say negative things in print.

Barely half (51.6%) see no problem with the practice (followed here) of a review containing a link to Amazon or other site where the book can be purchased. I, of course, fall in that half but the practice is disclosed in my Reader Pledge.

Finally, fully 60 percent say it is acceptable for a newspaper book section or magazine to “ignore” self-published books submitted to it.

Even if there were established rules of ethics for book reviewers, compliance would be voluntary. Still, I think it’s interesting to see the views in this area, particularly in terms of honesty and disclosure. I should also notethat GalleyCat has some pertinent observations on the survey in light of the blogger v. mainstream reviewer debate that’s been going on for some time now.

3 comments to The ethics of book reviewing

Because I don’t consider myself a “book reviewer,” I have no qualms about linking people to the books I talk about. I, however, don’t feel that Amazon needs any more business than they already have, so in support of independent bookstores everywhere I link to Powells.com instead.

I’ve also been offered books for review, but I nearly always turn them down. I feel horrible having a company send me books that I may never read and will probably not review to their standards. The exception is when I have books sent to me with no mention of a review – I keep these, and respond with a note thanking the publisher and informing them that I feel no obligation to review the books.